AVG AntiVirus Free 2015 PCmag review

Q:AVG AntiVirus Free 2015 PCmag review

Hands-On TestingIn addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.

Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.

One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.

McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.

Unusual Phishing ProtectionPhishing websites are frauds that imitate banking sites or other sensitive sites. Their aim is to steal your login credentials for the real sites they mimic. The antiphishing component in most security products simply diverts the browser to a warning page. AVG goes about the process differently.

AVG watches for signs of phishing in each Web page as the browser displays it. If it determines the site is a fraud, it interrupts the browser's rendering of the page and pops up a warning, much like the warning you get when it detects malware. As with the malicious URL blocking test, the Site Safety browser plug-in didn't get involved.

I tested this feature using about 100 URLs that had been reported as fraudulent but not yet verified. For comparison, I tried to load the same collection of URLs on a system protected by Norton. I also checked how the phishing protection built into Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Chrome reacted.

AVG's detection rate came in 25 percentage points lower than Norton's, the same as Avast. That put these two right in the middle of current products. Firefox and Chrome also beat AVG, by 18 and 15 percentage points respectively. It's true that AVG's detection rate was 33 percent better than that of Internet Explorer, but virtually every product beats IE in this test.

A Good SolutionIn tests by independent labs, AVG AntiVirus Free 2015 gets generally good marks. It turned in a decent performance in my hands-on malicious URL blocking and antiphishing tests. The new user interface is attractive, and the bonus Web TuneUp plug-in enhances browser security.

Real-time ProtectionFor some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.

Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.

In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.

One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.

Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its... Read more

Very Good Malware BlockingAs with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.

A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.

Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.

As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)

I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.

After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.

Good Malicious URL BlockingIn the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.

Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more

A:Avira Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high

Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp

A:McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 PCmag review

i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)

During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.

Good Malware BlockingWhen I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.

As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.

Malicious URL BlockingThanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?

Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.

Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart

Good Malware BlockingI rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.

Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more

Pros Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.

Bottom Line Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp

Hands-On TestingTo get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.

Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.

With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.

Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.

Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more

Effective Malware BlockingPanda scored very well in my hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my current malware sample collection, it didn't do anything immediately. That's because Panda waits for a significant event like file creation or modification; it doesn't scan just because a process accessed the file. When I copies the collection to another folder, Panda got to work, quickly wiping out 86 percent of the samples.

It also caught some of the remaining samples when I launched them. Overall, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8.8 points, the same as Kaspersky. Among products tested with this same collection, Trend Micro has the best scores, with 93 percent detection and 9.1 points.

Results from tests with my previous malware collection aren't directly comparable, of course, but you have to appreciate what Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did with that bunch. It detected 100 percent of the samples and earned a perfect 10 points.

My malicious URL blocking test doesn't rely on a pre-set collection of samples. Rather, I take the very newest list of malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas and attempt to download real-world malware samples. The antivirus gets credit for blocking access to the URL or for wiping out the file during or immediately after the download. I keep at this test until I have results for 100 very new malicious URLs.

As I proceeded with the test, Panda's stats stayed remarkably... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus (2016) PCMag review

I should not provide any questions for Panda cause they have already identical two flip side of a story in the test.

Cons Hardly any results from independent testing labs. Doesn't include every feature of Kaspersky antivirus. No phishing protection. Behavioral detection flagged both good and bad programs.

Bottom LineZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ combines a top-notch firewall with antivirus protection licensed from award-winning Kaspersky. This free program can be a good choice if you don't want a full-scale security suite.

avast! continues its series of updates and enhanced antivirus software solutions by delivering streamlined GUIs and several brand-new protection features. avast! Free Antivirus 2015 is one of the products from the antivirus editions (Pro, Internet Security and Premier) that comes with an updated interface and fresh features.

It gives you control over your home network security, supports HTTPS scans for malware and threats, as well as lets you activate a smart scan which looks for threats, updates and other issues.

The Software Updater now automatically pre-downloads software updates in the background without interfering with your work. Plus, it grabs the updates from its own servers, so the process is basically much faster.

MyAvast online console which can be run via your web browser also benefits from updates. It displays a simplified design with widgets and integrates the Rewards program where users receive Karma points and badges for mainly contributing to the online community.

Streamlined and smart GUIAt a first glance, avast! Free Antivirus 2015 hasn?t changed much since its previous 2014 version. This has to do with the fact that the developers from avast! have implemented some new features while delivering the same user-friendly environment that you got used to.

Actually, the newly reshaped GUI looks even more intuitive and follows the lines of the new trend in terms of flat design. While the old build gives you the possibility to make the panel with the key fe... Read more

Malicious URL BlockingThe big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.

I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.

So-So Phishing DetectionThe browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.

I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2015 PCmag review

F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.

Good Malware BlockingF-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.

I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.

When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.

F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.

Definitely a ContenderBitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.

Shared AntivirusThis suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.

West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.

G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.

Shared AntivirusAvast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.

My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.

Good, Not GreatAvast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.

Shared Antivirus FeaturesThe antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.

Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.

In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.

As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more

A:Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 PCmag review

Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.

When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.

I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.

A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.

Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.

Small Performance HitI wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro... Read more

ProsExtremely fast scan. Removed many malware samples. Free.ConsNo real-time protection. Missed older malware samples in testing. In testing, some files reported as quarantined were still present.Bottom LineMalwarebytes 3.0 Free aims to wipe out pernicious malware that gets past your regular antivirus, or prevents you from installing protection. But with no real-time protection it can't be your primary antivirus.more in the link above

Decent Malware BlockingIn my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo scored 8.3 points out of a possible 10. That puts it on par with McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and just a hair behind Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015. Panda Free Antivirus 2015 earned 8.0 points in this test. However, Panda received excellent ratings from many of the labs, and I weight those scores higher than my own simple hands-on testing. Quite a few products, Avast Free Antivirus 2015among them, have detected all the tweaked samples.

Interestingly, all of Comodo's malware detection occurred the instant I opened my folder of samples. It quickly and silently wiped out 83 percent of the samples, without bothering to announce what it had done. When I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre, it didn't actively block any of them.

I also exposed Comodo to a folder containing hand-modified versions of the same malware samples. I tweaked some non-executable bytes in each sample, and also changed each file's name and size. I was quite surprised to find that my simple tweaking prevented Comodo's signature-based detection system from recognizing more than half of the samples. This might suggest that its signatures need to be more open-ended and less restrictive.

Poor Blocking of Malicious URLsOf course, in the real world you're very unlikely to simply open a folder containing malicious programs. If you encounter a malware attack, it will most likely come through a malic... Read more

ProsExcellent scores from independent labs. Scores from very good to superb in our hands-on tests. Effective ransomware protection. Many bonus features including password manager, secure browser, and file shredder.ConsFull antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.Bottom LineBitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 combines top-scoring antivirus protection with so many bonus features it would almost qualify as a security suite.

Excellent Malicious URL BlockingI've been running my malicious URL blocking test since last November. I start with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I filter out those that don't point directly to malicious executables and then try launching each URL. Even though they're typically less than four hours old, many are already MIA. For the URLs that still work, I note whether the antivirus blocks access to the site entirely, blocks the malicious download, or does nothing.

avast! Free Antivirus 2014 was one of the first products to undergo this test, and for many, many months its blocking rate of 79 percent remained the top score. In the last couple weeks, that score has been thrashed repeatedly. Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 blocked 80 percent, a new high score. But just days later, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 leapt into first place with 85 percent.

ESET blocked access to 32 percent of the URLs and prevented malware download for another 49 percent. Its total blocking percentage of 81 percent doesn't beat the record, but it's respectably in second place.

Average System ScanESET defaults to what it calls Smart Scan for malware. I had to dig deep to find a way to launch an in-depth scan. I thought the scan was going to be quick, because the progress bar filled almost to the end in just a few minutes. However, it sat there at almost-done for quite some time. In the end, it took 26 minutes, precisely the current average.

ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware analyzes all suspicious activities on your PC. It detects Ransomware attacks, blocks them and immediately restores any encrypted files. ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware is the result of years of research and development and offers the best Enterprise-Grade protection against Ransomware threats. It is fully compatible with all antivirus solutions.

​Auto File RestorationThe only anti-ransomware protection that immediately and automatically restores any encrypted files.File ProtectionDetects and blocks Ransomware threats, even those that other PC security solutions don?t catch.PC ShieldBlocks any malicious attempts to lock your PC and ensures you always have access to it.​Comments below.

A:ZoneAlarm Anti-Ransomware (30-day Free Trial) + PCMag Review

Not bad. The early video review here showed it fail terribly against RW. Apparently it has improved much from its earliest beta. It will be great to see it in the Hub!I did get to learn interesting bits about the ransomware protection of some other apps from the link too.

ProsIncludes password manager, software updater, and many other Avira tools. Excellent scores from antivirus labs. Very good score in malicious URL blocking test. Free.ConsMany components require payment for full functionality. Sluggish antivirus protection and scanning. Real-time protection missed some executable malware files.Bottom LineAvira Free Security Suite, introduced this year, packs a goodly collection of features beyond antivirus, but it doesn't come close to the power of a full-scale, paid security suite

General InformationAvira Antivirus for Windows, version 2015 update 8 has been released on February 12th, 2015.ImprovementsRevised update mechanism offering more flexibility and better support for scenarios using a proxyAdditional sensors for Behavior-based Detection have been implementedThe Avira Free Antivirus detection update frequency has been increased (default frequency is set on 2h, same as Avira Antivirus Pro)New installations include the new update frequencyExisting installations will not be updated by default. The 2h interval of the detection update has to be set manually by the user (An automatic change of existing installations will be presumably implemented with a future update)Bug fixesThere are no bug fixes for this update.http://www.avira.com/en/support-for-home-knowledgebase-detail/kbid/1699

HiHate to post because i have bad grammar and I usually use the forum of the product. Arivas' new forum stinks. So I need to change my antivirus.I'm using Ariva 2012 and support is going to run out. I kept it because Im looking for a low resource antivirus and Ariva 2012 uses 17-22mgs whether I'm idle or web browsing.. I'm not going to find something that low. My main concerns are, One web browsing speed and two security. I know,what your thinking, how can I use an old antivirus and say that. I have malwarebyes free,comodo cleaning essentials,hitman pro on my usb amoung others. I'm down to the choices of Avast 2015 free,Ariva 2015 free, and Panda 2015 free. Bitdefender has been quarantining good files and users can't get them back or that would be the first one. Ok first ariva question, is there still the problem with Ariva of the BSOD on install? And second can I turn off any feature to gain resources without giving up security. I would be very thankful if i get a response or two. I know this isn't urgent,but Im stuck. I have spent too much wasted time on the Ariva forum site.

I have not heard any recent reports with Avira throwing a BSOD on install. avast free is good but a bit heavy if you are looking for something lite on resources. That leaves Panda but the free version includes pop-up ads prompting users to upgrade just like most other available free alternatives.

I've read in the pinned topic "List of Antivirus Uninstallers and Removal Tools > Antivirus removal tools" at the top of this section about antivirus removal and It says to always use add/remove to uninstall programs from the computer. But when I go to the Avast site it says that the preferred method of uninstalling is to use their uninstall utillity. I'd like to say that I'm not having any issues with Avast nor am I unhappy with the product. I'm uninstalling because I want to try the free trials of Kaspersky and BitDefender and make a decision after that.

I've read a few times across multiple forums of people having problems uninstalling Avast so before I start I would like some feedback on which process I should go through to have the best chance of uninstalling without problems. I'm using Vista if this info is needed. Thanks

A:How do I uninstall Avast Antivirus Free 2015 properly?

Hi there,The Avast uninstall utility (AvastClear) is only to be used if the uninstallation of Avast products go wrong and left behind remnants on the system.I do suggest that you uninstall it the normal way using Programs and Features - preferably in Safe Mode since the service will not be running and less likely to leave behind trash. If it refuses to uninstall in Safe Mode (programs that depended on the Windows MSI service to uninstall will not work), do a clean boot and uninstall Avast from there. After that run AvastClear.Hope this answers your questions.Regards,Alex

I am using "Avast Antivirus Free 2015".When i ran the Full System Scan,the Antivirus didn't found a single Virus or Malware.

I had seen somewhere on youtube that,having "Malwarebytes Anti Malware" works great along with your regular Free/Complete Antivirus Software for complete protection.So,i installed "Malwarebytes Anti Malware".After scanning,it detected almost 85 PUP Malwares,which i quarantined with the help of "Malwarebytes Anti Malware".I would like to mention that the "Scan for potentially unwanted programs (PUPs)" is check Marked in my Avast,which you can see from the attached Picture # 2 (Below) of Avast General Settings.

Avast is one of the best free Anti-virus programs out there. You need a few different tools to get everything off of your PC. Avast doesn't typically scan for PUPS by default, typically I believe you have to place a checkmark in the box you show for Avast.

Avast is going to be really good at blocking viruses above all else. You will want to continue to scan with Avast and Malwarebytes as well as programs like Superantispyware, Adwcleaner and/or Junkware removal tool. Now as a warning, running all of these, even if up to date, does not ensure a clean system.. There are a lot of places to look and clean on an infected computer.

Should I keep it? So far it's lighter than WD and Baidu. The two of which let malware slip in and destroy an install of Windows before I could react. And so far every firewall test I've ran has been superb vs. Windows Firewall.

I'm not all too worried about HTTP scanning or "the cloud" either. Since if need be I can just use Traffic Light or Avira Browser Safety in combination with Adguard. (I made the jump to chrome) just that it has better protection then Baidu or MSE/WD and will block something if it gets passed my browser be it on-access or when I run a scan.

I'm also curious because many testers elsewhere have given the Pro version which only adds 4 functions I really don't think there's much need for (at least in my usage case. I've only ever gotten infected from malvertisements) really high (on par with BD and the like, higher than AVG and Avira). (Score of 99%).

A:Opinions on Zone Alarm Free Firewall + Antivirus 2015?

i would not use the av module. the firewall is fine but the av is realy mediumcore/bad. low detection rate and not up to date kasperskys signatures. if u get infected with top avs than its not the av fault,maybe u should learn abit what to install and what to click on the internet. i would uninstall zonealarm av/firewall and would go with something like Panda,avast,qihoo,avg or avira. all nice fee avs with decent protection. if u want a firewall u can try out comodo firewall,private firewall or online armor. all have hips modules so u will get pupops and need to understand them.

Could Be GoodThere's no question that Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) is the tiniest suite around, with the least impact on system resources. And it offers impressive antivirus protection, demonstrated by top marks in my own tests and independent lab tests.

However, it lacks a number of features found in most of its competition. There's no firewall, just extra support for Windows firewall. If you need spam filtering or parental control, this isn't the suite for you. But if your needs coincide with the features it does have, it can be a great fit.

Sub-Ratings:Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.Firewall: n/aAntivirus: Performance: Antispam: n/aPrivacy: Parental Control: n/a

Pros Installs AVG's security suite on unlimited PCs, antivirus on unlimited Android and Mac devices. AVG Zen tool monitors security of all your devices and allows remote fixing of problems. Less expensive than comparable products.Cons No security suite for Mac, just antivirus. Comparable products are more feature-rich.Bottom Line AVG Protection PRO lets you install a security suite on unlimited PCs and antivirus on unlimited Mac and Android devices. It costs less than similar products, but it also offers fewer features.Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472440,00.asp

More and more antivirus developers have migrated to the cloud to keep their malware definitions up to date and scan computers directly from a remote server to reduce resource usage. Evidently, cloud technology has its pros and cons when it comes to security applications, but users have deemed them reliable overall.

Last week, Panda Security released version 3 for Panda Cloud Antivirus, bringing new features to the table compared to its previous edition (check out our review for Panda Cloud Antivirus 2.0). The interface has been revamped to blend in with the Metro UI look of Windows 8, tasks can be now scheduled to run automatically without user intervention, a rescue kit can be used in urgent scenarios triggered by malware infiltrations, while pen drives can be prevented from infecting PCs via autorun (previously available only in the Pro version of Panda Cloud Antivirus).

The package unwraps very quickly. However, since it is ad-supported, Panda gives users the possibility to install some browser components that it does not actually need to run normally, as well as to modify some browser settings. With minimal user intervention, these tools can be excluded from the setup.Panda's Metro UI interface with flat buttonsAs previously mentioned, Panda's interface has been rebuilt from scratch, favoring flat tiles with multiple colors. Thanks to an "Edit" button placed on the bottom of the frame, users may hide tiles and re-... Read more

Effective AntivirusWebroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) is the tiniest antivirus around, and its installation and scanning are both super-fast. The mega-suite is slightly bigger, but it still takes about one tenth the disk space of the average suite. Read my review of the antivirus for full details. I'll simply summarize here.

None of the six independent labs I follow currently include Webroot in their regular testing, though Dennis Technology Labs will add Webroot in the first quarter of 2015. A private test by Dennis Labs earlier this year revealed that Webroot would have earned top-level AAA certification. Webroot was also one of just three product to pass in a test by MRG-Effitas.

Webroot's malware detection relies on a cloud service that analyzes program behaviors, not on antivirus signatures. On detecting an unknown process, Webroot starts journaling all its actions and watching for signs that it's malicious. If a process steps over the line, Webroot reverses all of its actions. Until a process gets the green light, irreversible actions like transmitting information to the Internet are suppressed.

I observed this feature in action; some of my malware samples initially seemed to get past the antivirus, but after a few minutes it started wiping them out. In the end it earned a perfect 10 points in my hands-on malware blocking test.

The suite also earned a very good score in my malicious URL blocking test. This test challenges each antivirus with 100... Read more

You get a boatload of features with Comodo Firewall 8, and they don't cost you a thing. It does the job of a personal firewall, and its Viruscope malware detection system has evolved impressively. And there's the hardened browser, virtual desktop, and program sandboxing, the feature list goes on and on. My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction. When it does so, we'll raise the rating back up to 4.5 stars.

Even with this one worry, Comodo hangs on to our Editors' Choice badge for personal firewalls. It shares that honor with ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2015.

Full Article

A:Comodo Firewall 8 PCmag review

Got to love the reviewer comment on the HIPS:

The HIPS system wreaked havoc on my attempt to install 20 PCMag utilities. These utilities necessarily hook into various Windows processes, and Comodo suspected some type of malfeasance for most of them. Only seven installed and ran without incident. All the rest triggered anywhere from one to dozens of popups. I always chose to allow the reported action and remember my answer. Even so, in a couple of cases the popups just never stopped coming. Well, I gave up at two dozen; I figure the average user would get frustrated even sooner.Click to expand...

However in my opinion, the reviewer nails one thing right:

My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction.Click to expand...

Simple InstallationWhen you purchase F-Secure SAFE, you get a link to download a just-for-you installer with your license key embedded. You create an F-Secure SAFE account and proceed to make your first installation. You can choose to download and install on the machine you're using, send an email link to another device, or send the link via SMS.

Installation is quick and simple. Any time you want to use another of your licenses, you simply log in to the F-Secure SAFE online console and repeat the process?either download locally or send a link via email or SMS.

PC ProtectionInstalled on a PC, F-Secure SAFE is precisely F-Secure Internet Security 2015, with the tiny addition of a tray menu item that links to the F-Secure SAFE online console. Read my review of the suite for full details.

Very briefly, this suite offers good detection of malware-hosting URLs, but isn't as good at detecting fraudulent (phishing) sites. It earned good scores in independent lab tests and in my own hands-on tests. However, its parental control system is limited, and it lacks features found in other suites, including one found in its own previous edition.

Android ProtectionF-Secure SAFE for Android has a slick, spacious appearance. A row of icons across the bottom lets you flip between feature pages, or you can just swipe left or right. The antivirus component offers on-demand scanning, real-time protection, and scheduled scanning. You can also configure it to scan when the device ... Read more

Shared AntivirusAntivirus protection in this suite is precisely the same as what you get with ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8, so I'll just summarize here. Read the antivirus review for full details.

ESET's technology gets high marks from almost all of the independent labs. It's one of just a handful that participated in all 12 of the last 12 tests by Virus Bulletin and received VB100 certification every time. It got the top rating in tests by AV-Comparatives and Dennis Technology Labs. Only AV-Test Institute gave it a so-so rating.

ESET didn't fare nearly as well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. I run this test mostly to get real-world experience of how each product handles malware attack, but I still like to see a good score. ESET scored 7.3 of 10 possible points, almost the lowest among products tested with my current sample set.

On the other hand, it did an extremely good job of blocking downloads from newly-discovered malicious URLs. It blocked 81 percent of the downloads, some by blocking all access to the URL and others by halting the download. With 85 percent blocking, McAfee Internet Security 2015 is the only product that's done better.

Other Shared FeaturesESET's social media scan will check that you've got your Facebook and Twitter accounts configured for maximum privacy. Of course, if you want the public to see your tweets, maximum Twitter privacy may not be quite what you want. The scanner includes links to each service... Read more

Hands On With the AntivirusThe test results from the big independent labs are certainly useful, but I like to run my own tests, to get a hand-on feel for how each product works. The test starts when I open a folder containing my collection of malware samples. It's not uncommon for a security product to immediately wipe out most of the samples. Bitdefender Total Security 2015 and F-Secure Internet Security 2015 both wiped out more than 80 percent of the samples on sight.

Norton's approach is different, with much less reliance on simple signature-based detection. It wiped out 28 percent of the samples on sight, but blocked and quarantined most of the rest when I tried to launch them. With an overall detection rate of 89 percent and an overall score of 8.3, it's just a hair behind Bitdefender.

You'll notice in the chart that many products tested using my previous malware collection scored quite a bit higher. Since it was a different collection, scores aren't directly comparable. And I do give more weight to results from the independent labs.

Good Malicious URL BlockingMy malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered nasty URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I launch those that point directly to malicious executables, noting whether the security product blocked access to the URL, quashed the download, or simply did nothing. Despite being just a few hours old, many of the URLs are already no good. I keep at it until I have data for 100 ... Read more

A:Symantec Norton Security PCmag review

I do not like the bad detection of norton. Behavioral blocking and sonar is good but I like it when Antivirus detects even before executing.